Dronma wrote:It is what I also think about Osho. I am not impressed at all by his "fruit-salad" teachings. Maybe it was something new for '60s and '70s, but I cannot see why people could be interested in his ideas nowadays.....

I imagine the "free sex" aspect tends to be quite a draw card, especially when it's couched in a "spiritual" framework because then you can avoid (or at least justify to yourself: "what do they know they are not spiritually advanced like me") the possible social stigma attached to just getting laid with anybody and everybody.

I visited the Oregon Ranch in May, 1984 and saw Bhagwan Shree Rajeesh/Osho twice in his drive-by's. This was a field trip sponsored by Oregon State University for a class comparing/contrasting Rajneesh and Gandhi. We were treated respectfully and given several tours. In between activities, we had full run of the place with no security guards in evidence. We had a discussion meeting with one of "the biggies", Teertha and we met Bhagwan's adoptive father, "Bapuji". We met Ma Isabel and several other "high ups", who appeared to be very competent and, well, "happy to see us" even though were were just a bunch of students most of whose interest was simple curiosity, not "Enlightenment Through Bhagwan".

I am convinced of Osho's enlightenment simply from hearing and watching his discourses, as well as reading those discourses in book format. As one reviewer put it in words to the effect, "In hearing Bhagwan, it is as if we are hearing Enlightenment speaking of itself". That's my impression - in regard to his explication of religion and spirituality - which, after all, was his core mission. I pay less attention to the peripheral stuff he said on sexual relationships/marriage, childbearing, HIV, politics and a host of other non-religious subjects. But on spirituality, he always seemed spot-on, profoundly wise, relevant, and - most impressive of all - extremely easy to understand even when speaking on very esoteric ideas.

Osho's arrest and exportation from the US was an example of illegal behavior that matched or even surpassed anything done by "Sheela and her gang". Arrested without warrant, Bhagwan was spirited away for a series of days when not even his lawyers knew his location. Bhagwan's simple claim was that on one of these days, he was given "a piece of plain bread smeared with a tasteless red sauce". During that time, his signature became nearly unrecognizable. These two facts, for me, do support his later claim that he was poisoned sometime during those lost days in the hands of some overzealous, criminal "Feds". At first I theorized that, coming from India, Bhagwan would not be familiar with most American foods, so he might not recognize the "breakfast" he was handed. However, nothing in my long American culinary experience matches his description of plain bread spread with tasteless red sauce. The only red sauces I know of are definitely not tasteless, since they are either spicy-hot like salsa, or very sweet like jelly, jam, or syrup. This single meal is very suspicious, but it tends to support the alleged model of illegality that the government applied to Osho's arrest and deportation.

Moreover, it was Osho himself who exposed Sheela's crimes and who voluntarily invited the FBI to the Ranch to perform a full investigation into all the "Ma-archy's" shenanigans. Included in this evidence were tapes Sheela had recorded of ostensibly "private" conversations between herself and Osho. Osho turned these tapes over to the FBI himself. Obviously, Osho knew that they contained nothing incriminating of himself. And indeed, the government never found anything against Bhagwan, except for some trumped-up charges that he "arranged illegal marriages". The point is, Sheela's crimes were Sheela's crimes, and Osho never had any idea of what they were and how extensive and destructive they had become. As he said at the time, "Enlightenment means I have come to know myself. It does not mean that I know when crimes are committed or that my own room is being bugged."

Osho was, yet at the same time, was not, "a nice guy". He said that the Master's work is surgical - it hurts. The Master gives you nothing, but is constantly taking things away from you, cutting and cutting, until the core Buddha Nature is exposed and the sincere seeker must face his/her own "divine" nature and act accordingly. He sometimes compared himself to the helpful but terrifiyingly, intensely fierce Bodidharma, and with good reason. Bhagwancould be as tender as a mother and as savage as an Atilla. The only thing that really matters - at least to me - is the degree of success he had in communicating Dharma, "God", "Spirit", Advaita, Taoism, Kabbalah, and all things spiritual. I believe his success rate in these realms alone was phenomenal.

A very nice, intruiguing article about Bhagwan's time in Oregon can be found here:

Dronma wrote:It is what I also think about Osho. I am not impressed at all by his "fruit-salad" teachings. Maybe it was something new for '60s and '70s, but I cannot see why people could be interested in his ideas nowadays.....

I imagine the "free sex" aspect tends to be quite a draw card, especially when it's couched in a "spiritual" framework because then you can avoid (or at least justify to yourself: "what do they know they are not spiritually advanced like me") the possible social stigma attached to just getting laid with anybody and everybody.

Free sex in the age of HIV??? I have heard stories from people I know about his ashram in Poona. Each time they were entering the ashram it was necessary to present a new medical certificate that they were clean of HIV. Sometimes people were cheating by presenting fake certificates because they were bored to take a new test. Of course, nobody could really distinguish which certificate was real or fake...

"My view is as vast as the sky, but my actions are finer than flour" ~ Padmasambhava ~

steveb1 wrote:I am convinced of Osho's enlightenment simply from hearing and watching his discourses, as well as reading those discourses in book format. As one reviewer put it in words to the effect, "In hearing Bhagwan, it is as if we are hearing Enlightenment speaking of itself". That's my impression - in regard to his explication of religion and spirituality - which, after all, was his core mission.

None of his spiritual discourses were his own, it was all stolen from other traditions and presented as his.

I pay less attention to the peripheral stuff he said on sexual relationships/marriage, childbearing, HIV, politics and a host of other non-religious subjects.

Well, this is the stuff you should pay attention to because this is actually his stuff.

Osho's arrest and exportation from the US was an example of illegal behavior that matched or even surpassed anything done by "Sheela and her gang". Arrested without warrant, Bhagwan was spirited away for a series of days when not even his lawyers knew his location. Bhagwan's simple claim was that on one of these days, he was given "a piece of plain bread smeared with a tasteless red sauce". During that time, his signature became nearly unrecognizable. These two facts, for me, do support his later claim that he was poisoned sometime during those lost days in the hands of some overzealous, criminal "Feds". At first I theorized that, coming from India, Bhagwan would not be familiar with most American foods, so he might not recognize the "breakfast" he was handed. However, nothing in my long American culinary experience matches his description of plain bread spread with tasteless red sauce. The only red sauces I know of are definitely not tasteless, since they are either spicy-hot like salsa, or very sweet like jelly, jam, or syrup. This single meal is very suspicious, but it tends to support the alleged model of illegality that the government applied to Osho's arrest and deportation.

Not to excuse the US governments actions, but people have been spirited away for doing much, much, less.

Moreover, it was Osho himself who exposed Sheela's crimes and who voluntarily invited the FBI to the Ranch to perform a full investigation into all the "Ma-archy's" shenanigans.

So while he was benefiting from it he had no problem, but when the shit hit the fan he took advantage of a ready and willing scapegoat. What a guy! Must be enlightened!

Greg, "Steveb1 wrote:I am convinced of Osho's enlightenment simply from hearing and watching his discourses, as well as reading those discourses in book format. As one reviewer put it in words to the effect, "In hearing Bhagwan, it is as if we are hearing Enlightenment speaking of itself". That's my impression - in regard to his explication of religion and spirituality - which, after all, was his core mission.

None of his spiritual discourses were his own, it was all stolen from other traditions and presented as his.

I pay less attention to the peripheral stuff he said on sexual relationships/marriage, childbearing, HIV, politics and a host of other non-religious subjects.

Well, this is the stuff you should pay attention to because this is actually his stuff"

You are spot on!Perhaps the only saving grace was that he never said anything bad about the Buddha or Ramana Maharshi but he was critical, often scathing of all other teachers!

This issue of him using other teachings ,i personally dont see the problem if one has insight and points out the truth in other teachings,if one sees these truths themself's i think that is perfectly fine.it doesnt necessarily mean one is only repeating what was said.

duffster wrote:This issue of him using other teachings ,i personally dont see the problem if one has insight and points out the truth in other teachings,if one sees these truths themself's i think that is perfectly fine.it doesnt necessarily mean one is only repeating what was said.

Each of us is in on a spiritual journey that transcends this age and time (that who rebirth thing) and each of us need different things at different time.

If Osho presents thoughts and ideas and teachings that speak to you, that is the only thing that matters. I enjoy Osho's teachings and have found value in them at different times. He's alright.

The most infamous teacher of the late 1970s was Osho, or Rajneesh as he was in those days. I once heard Maharaj say that he respected the state that Rajneesh was in, but he couldn't understand all the instructions he was giving to all the thousands of foreigners who were then coming to India to see him. Although the subject only came up a couple of times while I was there, I got the feeling he liked the teacher but not the teachings. When Rajneesh's foreign 'sannyasins' showed up in their robes, he generally gave them a really hard time. I watched him throw quite a few of them out, and I saw him shout at some of them before they had even managed to get into his room.

Rajneesh died at 5:30 last night, a massive heart attack. Mahesh called from his hotel with the news. U.G.'s reaction was good riddance, and in his exact words, "The world has never seen a pimp of this magnitude."

(Mahesh = Mahesh Bhatt, the famous Indian movie director and ex-Rajneesh "sannyasin")

Perhaps as a general rule making judgement as to 'who is enlightened' is a bit pointless. After all if so-and-so is enlightened - so what? Buddhism teaches we have to do the work ourselves. I suppose the exception is in Guru Yoga where absolute trust in the guru is a pre-requisite. But from what I understand, this doesn't involve suspension of your critical faculties and literal adulation of the guru. Besides the guru is the embodiment of the Dharma, it is not his/her personality that is the focus of the attention - although the idea of the guru is unavoidably behind a lot of cults and fads.

In any case, projection and transference are ubiquitous in the spiritual search. We project special qualities upon those we idolize, and then become disillusioned when it turns out they are human also. We have to have a lot of self-awareness and critical thinking. Critical thinking doesn't mean being cynical and hostile, but the ability to see things in a very clear-eyed way.

As a general rule, I think it is good to read and contemplate things that are counter-factual to your natural inclinations. Be critical. If your dharma cannot withstand tough scrutiny, it is not sufficiently robust.

Learn to do good, refrain from evil, purify the mind ~ this is the teaching of the Buddhas

I know very little about Osho, but having been an ex-professor of philosophy, a strong and charismatic personality, it really doesn't take being awakened to be able to talk well about these things. A lot of intelligent people fell under his spell (and the spell or much worse cult-leaders) due to being taken in by charisma. Looking at how one lives is a more reliable guide to awakening or otherwise, IMO.